It finally makes sense why teams are offering up ridiculous contracts despite not having the monies to pay for it because they are not held accountable because they are continuously bailed out, hence, it is completely understandable that the more healthy teams who are being more financially responsible and not engaging in careless dealings are fed up because not only are they being responsible while others arent but at the same time losing out on the big players because they are not offering careless deals and then under the same system are giving the other teams money to have the big players with the irresponsible contracts?? It's hardly a fair system and needs to be corrected. How about you only get as much of the revenue share as you put in which is the same as no revenue sharing. Be financially responsible for your own business and generate your own revenue so they will be more accountable to balancing their books or being more financially responsible. At best, set up a contingency fund they all contribute a percentage of based on their revenue...and if things go rough...based on the amount they've contributed they get given in increments until they get past the rough period. Obviousely big money teams will contribute more and will have more of a safety cushion and the smaller markets contribute less and will get less, and this is consistent with what the teams are used to operating under...this contingency fund is fairer in that the companies are investing in themselves and not in someone elses business. And again, the contracts should be reviewed by the league and the teams will have to show how they will be able to carry out the contracts on their own commission.

Would it be more beneficial to keep the cap level but erase the the cap floor?

I'm not going to claim to be a hockey mind, but my opinion is yes.Don't make weak market teams spend money they don't have, but don't allow the monster markets to play Yankee ball.Competitive parity is not necessarily as tied to salary (within limits) as some may assume.Lots of examples of that - the Rangers spent money willy-nilly for ages and could scarcely buy any advantage. Currently you need only compare a team that spends to the cap, like Calgary, to teams like Florida or Phoenix to see that thrifty teams are not doomed to being non-competitive and teams that throw money around are not necessarily going to win.Letting go of the cap floor may be a concession on the NHLPA, but perhaps a reasonable one under the circumstances - and players still have the leverage to negotiate competitive contracts regardless.

You're missing a more basic part of economics. Expenses and Revenue. The expenses are things like cost of maintenance of the building, staff, marketing, and of course player wages. Once these expenses are paid the idea is to make a profit margin. Now the league has not been honest with total revenue. The NHL isn't like the NBA/MLB/NFL with massive TV contracts (Once again something Gary has failed to provide). The total revenue is things like merchandise, parking, food, drinks etc. Without transparency how do we know what the teams are making?

I'm not understanding the "basic part of economics" I'm "missing" and how it relates to ticket prices. It is as basic as supply and demand...the cost of tickets is dictated by demand and availability. If nobody wants them and there is a large supply of them, then they will throw them in for free if you buy a case a beer irrespective of how much it costs to run an arena or to pay a player. You simply cannot be pricing your tickets at $120 for the bleeds if nobody cares to go to the game, well you can but no one will buy them so it wouldn't make good business sense to do so. Whereas teams that have a waiting list for season tickets and consecutive years of sell outs and limited supply of available tickets, well then they are in a position to sell tickets for $120 in the bleeds irrespective of how much it cost to run the arena or pay a player.

Would it be more beneficial to keep the cap level but erase the the cap floor?

No. Instead of Nashville Predator success stories (spend cap floor, accidentally build a competitive team, win fans over) there would be even more Columbuses around spending even more of the rest of the league's money.

Would it be more beneficial to keep the cap level but erase the the cap floor?

That would be a brutal deal for the players, and they will never accept it. Nor should they.

If the owners are irrationally wedded to a salary cap, then the gap between the floor and cap should be much larger. Instead of 70 million - 54 million, it should be something like 80 - 40. That way all teams can spend an appropriate amount on player salaries.

Of course, the better option would be no cap, combined with strong revenue sharing and maybe a luxury tax.

That would be a brutal deal for the players, and they will never accept it. Nor should they.

If the owners are irrationally wedded to a salary cap, then the gap between the floor and cap should be much larger. Instead of 70 million - 54 million, it should be something like 80 - 40. That way all teams can spend an appropriate amount on player salaries.

Of course, the better option would be no cap, combined with strong revenue sharing and maybe a luxury tax.

Agree with the first point - the reason we see so many bad deals is because teams are trying to get to the cap floor.

In turn, agents and lawyers are using those bum deals for a client trying to sign with loaded teams that actually have money.

That would be a brutal deal for the players, and they will never accept it. Nor should they.

If the owners are irrationally wedded to a salary cap, then the gap between the floor and cap should be much larger. Instead of 70 million - 54 million, it should be something like 80 - 40. That way all teams can spend an appropriate amount on player salaries.

Of course, the better option would be no cap, combined with strong revenue sharing and maybe a luxury tax.

Agree with the first point - the reason we see so many bad deals is because teams are trying to get to the cap floor.

In turn, agents and lawyers are using those bum deals for a client trying to sign with loaded teams that actually have money.

That would be a brutal deal for the players, and they will never accept it. Nor should they.

If the owners are irrationally wedded to a salary cap, then the gap between the floor and cap should be much larger. Instead of 70 million - 54 million, it should be something like 80 - 40. That way all teams can spend an appropriate amount on player salaries.

Of course, the better option would be no cap, combined with strong revenue sharing and maybe a luxury tax.

Agree with the first point - the reason we see so many bad deals is because teams are trying to get to the cap floor.

In turn, agents and lawyers are using those bum deals for a client trying to sign with loaded teams that actually have money.

Damn, I really hope they can work this out soon. Honestly though, enough with this BS, hockey's a part of peoples lives, and Bettman is taking that away from us without concern of others well beings. Fascist.

So when do the fans start to fight back? Like its been said again and again, there IS a deal to be made here, but both sides instead are playing coy and pointing fingers. When do WE step up and let our voices be heard as well?

wonder who from the player's union will step up this time. hopefully we dont lose an entire season but i'm not too bent out of shape about a lock out. knew it was coming. players being paid millions of dollars complaining they aren't getting paid millions of dollars. doesn't make sense

Please fix cap circumvention. No more front loaded contracts. Term limits on contracts and a higher age before UFA are really important. Teams spend a lot of time and effort on developing their draft picks only to lose them at 27 years of age when they become stars, ie Suter and Parise. This needs to be upped to 10 seasons or 30 years. Since there is a lockout might as well fix all these things.

This Fehr guy is quite the character, I wouldn't be surprised if he caused the NHL to lose the entire season.

Please fix cap circumvention. No more front loaded contracts. Term limits on contracts and a higher age before UFA are really important. Teams spend a lot of time and effort on developing their draft picks only to lose them at 27 years of age when they become stars, ie Suter and Parise. This needs to be upped to 10 seasons or 30 years. Since there is a lockout might as well fix all these things.

This Fehr guy is quite the character, I wouldn't be surprised if he caused the NHL to lose the entire season.

So how much do the owners pay you to come on fan boards and try to talk up their side of things?